JOGINDER KAUR Vs. M C D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner(s) in each of the writ petitions claim to be having their properties abutting the Chand Nagar Punjabi Market Road. THE petitioner in WP(C) No.2763/2010 is an Association of Shopkeepers who claim to be having their shops abutting the said road. In each of the petitions, the relief claimed is of declaration that the action by the respondent MCD of demolition of properties / part properties of the petitioners while widening the said road is illegal, in violation of due process of law and in defiance of the constitutional and other rights of the petitioners to their properties. THE petitioners have also sought compensation and to restrain the respondent MCD from carrying out further demolition of their properties in the garb of road widening.

(2.) NOTICE of the petitions was issued and the matters adjourned from time to time for the respondent MCD to file counter affidavits. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent MCD till now. When the matters came up before this Court yesterday, there was again a request by the respondent MCD for time for filing counter affidavits. However, the matters being at the show cause notice stage and this Court being of the prima facie opinion that the petitions were not maintainable, the counsels were heard yesterday and two questions were posed to the counsels for the petitioners i.e. firstly, as to how in the writ jurisdiction it can be decided as to whether the demolition by the respondent MCD of the portions of the properties of the petitioners was illegal i.e. whether the properties demolition whereof has been carried out are on private land as contended by the petitioners or on public land as appeared to be the case of the respondent MCD; secondly, since it appeared from the record that the respondent MCD was carrying out the works aforesaid of road widening, and in removal of encroachments thereupon resulting into demolition of the properties of the petitioners, in pursuance to orders of the Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.23136/2005, filed in Public Interest and in Contempt Case No.649/2009 arising from orders in the said Public Interest Litigation, it was enquired how these writ petitions, the relief wherein was to stop the respondent MCD from carrying out the said works were maintainable.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding to consider the arguments of the counsel for writ petitioners in WP(C) Nos.11218/2009, 13343/2009, 10/2010, 255/2010 and the counsel for the writ petitioners in WP(C) No.2763/2010 in this respect, it is also relevant to point out that no interim relief had been granted to the petitioners in these petitions. The writ petitioner in WP(C) Nos. 11218/2009, 13343/2009, 10/2010 & 255/2010 had preferred intra-court appeals against the order dated 8th April, 2010 in these proceedings. The said appeals being LPA Nos.339/2010, 406/2010 & 335/2010 were disposed of vide common order dated 3rd June, 2010 of the Division Bench. No interim relief was granted to the petitioners by the Division Bench also. However, the Division Bench did hold that if this Bench eventually finds that there has been unauthorized demolition, this Bench would grant appropriate equitable reliefs to the petitioners; it was also observed that in that case, the works of construction done by the respondent MCD after removal of encroachment / demolition would not create any equity in favour of the petitioners.